A Second Channel of Communication?

[abaddon]

Is it because I studied only school level physics and school level math that don't see the first few digits of square of 27013627,which is 729736043695129, matching the first few digits of the value of alpha, which is 0.007297351?

7297360? That's my friends phone number. Therefore he is god.

2973604? That's another friends phone number. Therefore she is god.

Do you see how nonsensical this notion is?

 

[Slowvehicle]

7297360? That's my friends phone number. Therefore he is god.

2973604? That's another friends phone number. Therefore she is god.

Do you see how nonsensical this notion is?

72973 is the postal code for San José el Rincón in Puebla, Mexico. Therefore the Garden of Eden is in Puebla, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Food and Evil was an aguacate.

Proof!

 

[abaddon]

72973 is the postal code for San José el Rincón in Puebla, Mexico. Therefore the Garden of Eden is in Puebla, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Food and Evil was an aguacate.

Proof!

Aha, but 73604 is the zip code for Mustang, OK where the average house price is $87,300. Disregarding the zeros gives us 873.

8 is 6 + 2 over
7 is 6 with 1 over
Add the two left over and the one left over equals three. Add that to the existing three and you get 666.

Therefore Mustang, OK is mathematically proven to be Hell.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Aha, but 73604 is the zip code for Mustang, OK where the average house price is $87,300. Disregarding the zeros gives us 873.

8 is 6 + 2 over
7 is 6 with 1 over
Add the two left over and the one left over equals three. Add that to the existing three and you get 666.

Therefore Mustang, OK is mathematically proven to be Hell.

...as if one needed math to prove that hell was someplace in *klahoma...

 

[abaddon]

...as if one needed math to prove that hell was someplace in *klahoma...

I am almost certain someone said Oklahoma was the place to be?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am almost certain someone said Oklahoma was the place to be?

"Satan's a liar, and a conjur, too,
If you don't mind out, he'll conjur you..."

Ever been to *klahoma, Dread One?

 

[Darat]

You are missing the point. The question you might be better asking is "how could it have been done at all in a universe governed only by the laws of nature?"

As for the level of accuracy, I think it's sufficient to show it is by design, especially given the importance of the numbers, the importance of the verses In which they are found and the fact that there are many more patterns in there. As Vernon Jenkins says, it is nothing less than a standing miracle.

Yet still inaccurate and another word for inaccurate that in this context means the same is wrong.

This all powerful entity couldn't even get his sums right, something humans have been able to do - according to you - for at least 100 years.

 

[abaddon]

"Satan's a liar, and a conjur, too,
If you don't mind out, he'll conjur you..."

Ever been to *klahoma, Dread One?

Nope. Chicago is the closest I have been, and even that is not close.

 

[Dancing David]

I can prove that Barney is "the Beast", the adversary, without any rounding or "getting close enough" (which, for an omnipotent 'god' seems...odd...); in an older system than Arabic numerals. By the PO's standards, that indicates that 'god' declared that Barney really is "the Beast" (and knew that the original Sandy Duncan/Barney tapes [where the Purple One sounded and acted more like Perry Como] esset delenda [so to speak]).

Ha ha ha, no need to prove it to me, Barney is demonic

 

[Dancing David]

The final values don't have to be counted. In Hebrew gematria that would be the mispar gadol method. The mispar hechrachi, or ragil, or standard method simply takes the normal values of each letter. The method Vernon Jenkins is using is exactly that, although he equates it to the counting system used by the Hebrews in biblical times.

I disagree, but of course they will just fudge to get what they want anyhow

 

[Dancing David]

But in the case of John 1.1, nobody knew that e even existed! It wasn't known until the late 17th Century. How do you explain that?

You do know this a post hoc rationalization with a huge fudge factor thrown in.

 

[Dancing David]

I had a friend back in NYC who was a tad obsessive compulsive, who went through all sorts of holy texts to prove that numerology had found a constant in all the great religious texts of the world. "Snacks are fine in moderation."

The enlightenment is revealed!

 

[blue triangle]

You're still claiming that the hypogegrammene is an iota. It isn't. They converted the letter into a diacritic for a reason: to make it not a letter. It's the same as with the creation of the daseia from (h)eta, except that that one at least continued to represent the letter's original sound, so at least some case could be made for counting those and not the hypogegrameni. (I did have the wrong numerical value for (h)eta, though: that's 8. 70 would have been for the omicron alone.)

The letter is iota, and recognisable as iota. That's why it's called the iota subscript. The dasaia is no longer recognisable as a letter, even if it did evolve from eta.

 

[blue triangle]

Of course not. That's just hopelessly absurd. The knowledge it requires is a few bits of modern high-school math and a couple of languages, the only "presence" it requires is to be where the writers were when or before they wrote, and the only "power" it requires is the ability to communicate with humans. Yyblax of Zebulon is an immensely more rational and likely fit than what you've described.

You're joking, right? Yes, high-school maths is all that's required to understand it, but creating the patterns is another thing entirely.

 

[blue triangle]

I don't see a link to a page describing the π & e thing in detail.When they were first brought up, I presumed you must mean numbers that actually only had as many digits as were said to match π & e; in other words, that they surely must end where they're rounded off, not keep going after that with more digits that are wrong. There was still the problem with pretending you can just list digits after a decimal point with no indicator of where a decimal point would be in the Hebrew system, but I figured surely at least all of the digits you get from the formula must at least be the right digits, or there'd be no point in making the claim, would there?

But the claim about the fine structure constant turned to actually be a 15- digit number in which we were supposed to be amazed by the first four digits and pretend the other 11 weren't there. So the same pitifully low standard, so shabby that a critic of this whole thing like me didn't even imagine it at first, might also have applied to π & e. So... were those Jenkins numbers actually just those few digits and nothing else, or did they go on past that magic point with more digits that we're just supposed to ignore because they don't fit the real numbers they're supposed to fit?

Here's the link:

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/First_Princs.htm

The pi and e calculations, like alpha, give a long string of digits, only the first few of which match the digits of the transcendentals (and they are not the digits after the decimal points). The other digits aren't exactly being ignored. In their totality they comprise the error from the true values. However, in a decimal system, as you move to the right along the string of numbers, each has only a tenth of the value it would have if it were one place to the left, a hundredth of the value it would have if placed two digits to the left, etc. So in terms of accuracy, the first few digits count almost everything towards the total. It's like someone claiming to have a million pounds and someone else arguing that in fact they have a million and eleven pounds and 32.73615 pence, Therefore their estimate of their total worth was completely wrong. No, the estimate was pretty accurate.

The values of pi and e obtained are in error by only about 1 part on 90000. In the case of alpha it is even more accurate. I think this is enough accuracy for any reasonable person to conclude that the mathematical absolutes pi and e and the physical constant alpha were deliberately encoded within scripture, in the case of e and alpha, long before man was aware of those numbers.

 

[blue triangle]

Is it because I studied only school level physics and school level math that don't see the first few digits of square of 27013627,which is 729736043695129, matching the first few digits of the value of alpha, which is 0.007297351?

The first five digits match: 72973. The value is 10E17 larger of course, which is why I'm claiming it is the digits that match, not the values. I'm saying that it is pointing towards alpha, rather than reproducing it, as is the case with the pi and e calculations. Interestingly, though, the errors cancel out almost completely when the three are summed. Some error cancellation is to be expected, of course, but in this case the effect is phenomenal, hundreds of times greater than might be expected. All this is evidence of design.

 

[blue triangle]

Doh! No, I said I doubted you would get on with the Dawkins, and suggested you read this:

How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For a New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn.

I also posted this at the time:

It's an eye-opener, and far more useful to your personal enlightenment than this nonsense you are enamoured of just now. Seriously. Learn how the brain works, and how we are fooled by it. Fascinating stuff, and far more likely to lead to your happiness than leading yourself up the garden path (or worse being led by those who are looking to exploit your gullibility). (To which I have to add now: the worst of all by far would be to increase someone else's gullibility and start leading them up fruitless garden paths, especially if they are children. Numerology is fancy pareidolia, and teaching children to waste their lives in this sort of mystical pursuit is really a form of child abuse. I resent the wasted decades I had to struggle with after having a psychotic episode induced by my open minded allowance of magical "possibilities". Science was developed precisely to overcome our faulty brain habits that mislead us into self-delusion, and it has shown me that all that agonising and struggle was a waste of time and of my life. We are free! Free to be, not beholden to anything but ourselves. That's my message of peace and joy.)

Seriously.

I appreciate that you aren't trying to goad me, and you certainly come across as a very honest, genuine person. I am also very aware of the dangers lurking in the spiritual marketplace (and elsewhere). But perhaps you should ask yourself if your certainties about life are really warranted, given that so many people of equal capacity for observation, reflection and critical thought have concluded that God is real. You might also wish to consider whether you are in a position to know how God would wish to communicate with us. Finally, given the kind of language you have used above, you might want to ask yourself if it is really appropriate to be lecturing someone you hardly know on what they should teach their children. You aren't the first person on this thread to use that particular card, but that is no excuse for making such an offensive suggestion. Children should, be taught how to think, not what to think, and that applies to atheists and sceptics as well as theists. I sincerely hope, therefore, that those who would lecture me on how to educate my children are practicing what they preach. There are three sides to every argument: one side, the other side and the truth. None of us can see the complete picture, so the best we can ever do regarding the question of God, or any other important question, is give the two sides we know.

 

[Myriad]

Oh, triangle. Do you have any concept of the depth of the abyss you're teetering on the edge of, if not already plummeting into? In the other thread you acknowledged having wasted a lot of time peering into real and metaphorical telescopes, but this particular 'scope is more of the kaleido- variety. Reflect random arrangements off of enough internal mirrors and they'll show you beautiful patterns, but searching for meaning in those patterns is the road to madness, and finding such meaning is a major milestone on the way there.

There are people who see the teleological hand of some universal intelligence at work in the random turns of the Tarot cards, the shapes formed by tea leaves, and the arrangements that the planets and stars blunder mindlessly into and out of as they follow their utterly predictable courses. Should we credit those with divine meaning too? Does God or the gods also pass us messages in the toss of I Ching sticks, the movements of birds, and the entrails of sacrificed sheep? Are those the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, umpteenth channels of communication?

Or are people just really good at making up stories that attribute meaning to arrangements, whether they actually contain it or not?

I've examined claims like yours before. Here, I found over sixteen meaningful stylistic devices in a few lines of a pop song, to test the claim that the comparable stylistic depth of the verse in the Koran can only be explained by divine origin.

Here, I found a veritable confession (in both verbal and pictorial form) of an elaborate 9/11 conspiracy, by putting the letters of one of the most well-known quotes about the events of 9/11 into a square and then looking for words and patterns. Understanding why I did that and what it shows might take some back-story. It was based on what a member named Kingfisher2926 was demonstrating in this thread: that putting the first 64 Hebrew characters from Genesis into an 8x8 square in a particular way revealed therein all sorts of "significant" characteristics, shapes, symmetries, number patterns, and crostic words that couldn't possibly be the result of mere coincidence.

I recommend that you read that entire thread, though it's lengthy. You will either find a kindred spirit who will enlighten you with his discoveries of divine revelation, or a person whose evident departure from sense and reality will frighten you into reconsidering the course you're on.

In that thread, he claimed that the patterns he finds are self-evident from the most basic of manipulations, rather than the result of extensive searching in a vast space of possibilities. Does that claim sound familiar? I responded thus:

Fair enough. But arrangements of the source text in the grid are just one (or a few) of a vast number of dimensions in what I refer to as possibilities. And that wasn't even what I was referring to as "possibilities" in the part you quoted (though I did mention it separately later in the post). I'm talking about all the ways you looked for meaningful patterns, or could have looked if a few tempting characters had happened to suggest it to you. For instance, if the characters for "elohim" had happened to appear each separated by a knight's move from the last, would you have then searched the possible knight's tours (there are thirteen trillion of them in an 8x8 grid) for more hits? You found partial distributions of some characters on the grid, that formed the approximate shapes of other characters. How many such shapes did you search for and not find? Did you look for significant four-letter squares, five-letter crosses, approximate maps of parts of the Hebrew ancestral homelands, rainbows, towers, fish? How many different ways could you have rearranged the grid by removing one character and shifting the remaining ones, and how many other equally simple ways of modifying the grid are there, from which to search for one that cryptically relates to a line of scripture? How many other ways could you have turned characters into numbers, then looked for patterns and meanings in those numbers?

You tell me you've been working on this for years; what could you have been spending that time on, if not searching through ever more possibilities? Every new element, technique, association, reference, and manipulation you brought in or considered bringing or would have brought in if you could look ahead to interesting results from doing so (which the human brain is very good at doing) makes the expected likelihood of spurious but significant-looking hits so much greater, not less, because it expands the vast space of possibilities into yet another dimension. You have gone to great effort to show a great variety of different ways to decode meaning from the seal, but that variety works against your hypothesis not in favor of it.

He also claimed that he had performed "control" searches by repeating the same manipulations that revealed divine messages in Genesis on other generic texts, and had not found comparably striking patterns. I responded thus:

The problem is, it is not sufficient to merely attempt, on the alternative grids, the same processes that "worked" (produced interesting-looking results) on your Genesis Seal. Because you selected those processes, out of a potentially enormous space of possible processes, specifically because they worked on the Genesis Seal.

Say you find a 16-ounce can of Hanover pinto beans in your local supermarket. You hypothesize that such cans are extremely rare. To test that hypothesis, you choose a dozen other supermarkets and look for cans in the exact same shelf location within the store as the ones you found back home. You don't find any 16-ounce cans of Hanover pinto beans in any of those spots, although one of them does have 16-ounce bags of dried store brand kidney beans there. Would you be correct in concluding that your initial hypothesis, that 16-ounce cans of Hanover pinto beans are extremely rare, has been confirmed? That's the error you risk making here. You aren't searching nearly as large a space in your control tests.

It's not sufficient to only try what worked before. You must try all the possibilities you tried before. Since you've been working on the Seal for years, that's not going to be easy, nor is it going to be easy (or likely to happen) for any of us to spend years finding an equal amount of stuff in some other control grid. But the direct initial comparisons that can be made are looking good for our null hypothesis. The sheer number of words does seem to be larger in the MRC Secret Seal, and the complete meaningful instructional sentence I found (joining with other relevant words in a prominent symmetrical pattern) without any further manipulation of the grid has comparable if not superior aesthetic qualities and apparent improbability to anything you found in the Genesis Seal prior to any of your additional manipulations of it.

Don't compare that to how much "content" you ultimately found in the Genesis Seal, using all sorts of processes and interpretations (patterns of distributions of specific letters, patterns of types of letters, words found in non-linear paths or clusters or "geometric" arrangements of letters, further rearrangement of the grid, numeric values such as binary powers that are only significant to modern culture, anything that can be construed as a reference to any part of the Torah), after searching and fiddling with it for years. Instead, compare it to how much you found in the Genesis Seal, in just the original arrangement (which is most likely just one of multiple arrangements you tried, starting out) in the first ten minutes you looked at it, because that's about how long I spent.

The "MRC Secret Seal" referred to can be found in the second post on this page of the thread, in which member MRC_Hans (and other members who chimed in subsequently) found multiple meaningful words and "clues" in a letter grid derived directly from the opening words of Kingfisher's own first post in the thread. So two skeptical control attempts, MRC_Hans's "MRC Secret Seal" and my "Silverstein Seal," both succeeded on the first try in finding the semblance of hidden messages—and those were both based on English text, in which typical word lengths are longer and thus less likely to be formed at random. Perform the search over years of effort instead of a few minutes, and it's no surprise that more "amazing" improbable patterns will be found.

Bottom line: there are reasons why most religious authorities in scripture-based faiths discourage or forbid the kind of logomancy you and Kingfisher are engaging in here, regarding it at best a waste of effort and at worst a form of mortally sinful idolatry. You risk, in the quest to replace weak faith with hard evidence, doing the opposite instead, replacing resolute faith with the shakiest of evidence. With the further likelihood of replacing God with the kaleidoscope figures of your own imagination. Those who already consider God to be a kaleidoscope figure of people's imaginations won't mind terribly much, but it seems a strange risk to take when you maintain that such a being exists.

If you believe (as many Christians and other believers do) that a universal intelligence has manipulated language itself to preserve the (hidden coded) meanings in ancient scriptures, then why not focus on the much richer actual overt meanings conveyed by the actual words? Do you think the universal intelligence failed to guide those, and acted only upon the secret codes instead?

The Bible says that God once altered humankind, in a manner that would arguably have been responsible over the long run for more deaths worldwide than the Great Flood, in order to prevent a tribe from building too tall a building. (Most likely, the originators of the story would have envisioned the "tower" of Babel as some sort of large ziggurat.) What does that narrative mean today? Should we be concerned that erecting ever-taller skyscrapers will bring some even more destructive manifestation of God's wrath upon the entire world?

If not, if even the meaning of that straightforward story is unclear, then what meaning can all the secret codes and special numbers have? What is being communicated in this second channel?

 

[Slowvehicle]

The letter is iota, and recognisable as iota. That's why it's called the iota subscript. The dasaia is no longer recognisable as a letter, even if it did evolve from eta.

Special pleading is...special.

 

[abaddon]

Here's the link:

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/First_Princs.htm

The pi and e calculations, like alpha, give a long string of digits, only the first few of which match the digits of the transcendentals (and they are not the digits after the decimal points). The other digits aren't exactly being ignored. In their totality they comprise the error from the true values. However, in a decimal system, as you move to the right along the string of numbers, each has only a tenth of the value it would have if it were one place to the left, a hundredth of the value it would have if placed two digits to the left, etc. So in terms of accuracy, the first few digits count almost everything towards the total. It's like someone claiming to have a million pounds and someone else arguing that in fact they have a million and eleven pounds and 32.73615 pence, Therefore their estimate of their total worth was completely wrong. No, the estimate was pretty accurate.

The values of pi and e obtained are in error by only about 1 part on 90000. In the case of alpha it is even more accurate. I think this is enough accuracy for any reasonable person to conclude that the mathematical absolutes pi and e and the physical constant alpha were deliberately encoded within scripture, in the case of e and alpha, long before man was aware of those numbers.

And I can prove that you have tried to sabotage the Apollo 11 mission.

Let us use English gematria where A=1, B=2 etc.

Let us also take the first sentence of you post quoted above and apply said English gematria...

The pi and e calculations, like alpha, give a long string of digits, only the first few of which match the digits of the transcendentals

Summing the values we get a prime number. What are the chances that you accidentally composed your sentence to get a prime number? Pretty slim.

However, the prime number that we get is 1201, the very error code reported by the Apollo 11 AGC on final approach to the Moon's surface. Coincidence? I think not.


You are quite obviously the Apollo 11 attempted saboteur and your decades of guilt cause you to encode this in your very own posts.

See how easy that was?